Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92786
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 157.56.111.116 as permitted sender)
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4Npe8hJ1HOeJB3kfN11fnmyzRGi6znuR=Ay8kHds-ogSXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY1PR0201MB1786D216DB7CE6D61B61E9D7BF630@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <BLU436-SMTP543725ED65FFDEA7E68832E2630@phx.gbl>
CC: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>, internals
	<internals@lists.php.net>, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Message-ID: <571F7B91.2030102@zend.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:30:41 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP543725ED65FFDEA7E68832E2630@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2016 14:30:53.1202 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0201MB1785
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)



On 04/26/2016 05:19 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>> Am 26.04.2016 um 15:33 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>:
>>
>> hi Levi,
>>
>> It looks like your "work" on "Nullable Types" RFC was intended to win time for this patch and block "Nullable Types" again.
>> Actually, you have been blocking it for more than a year :(
>>
>> I'm going to push my own RFC for voting together with "Union Types".
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_return_types
>>
>> At least, it has up to date implementation.
>>
>> We discussed this internally 2-3 weeks ago, and my politeness (or/and stupidity) allowed you  to pass your version for common discussion.
>> Now I can see your real reason :(
>>
>> Both "Union Types" and "Nullable Types" may make sense, and both should be voted at the same time.
>> Tomorrow is time to start voting. Right?
>>
>> Thanks. Dmitry.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 02:37
>> To: internals
>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types
>>
>> Internals,
>>
>> Joe Watkins and Bob Weinand have worked out a [proof-of-concept patch
>> for union types][1]. Please go download it and experiment with it.
>>
>> A few things to note:
>>
>>   * This patch includes intersection types. However, a type expression
>> must be either a union type or an intersection type; it doesn't
>> support both such as `Array | (Countable & Traversable)`.
>>   * This patch adds `null`, `true` and `false` for type declarations.
>>   * This patch includes conversion rules for weak types.
>>   * It does not have short-hand for unions with null (`?Foo` being `Foo | Null`)
>>
>> These features (or omitted ones) are not necessarily what will be
>> voted on. Rather this patch allows us to experiment with these
>> features in code. This experience should be helpful for us to solidify
>> how we actually feel about these features.
>>
>> I especially would like people to try out the conversion rules for
>> scalar types as it has been a point of discussion.
>>
>>   [1]: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1887
> Hey Dmitry,
>
> Please, do not accuse us of blocking the nullables. This wasn't intentional and rather a coincidence that we provided a patch right now.
> First we wanted to concentrate our forces on getting a great 7.0 out before starting this RFC (as it didn't make it in time for going into 7.0 too as we waited for result on scalar types in general first).
> Then, as you're aware Levi had absolutely no time for a few months… Now, he has time to manage things and we could move ahead quickly and write the patch up.
I know, we all like to make our best for PHP.
Sorry, if I was too emotional.
> I'd like to hold first a formal (and binding) vote on whether "null |" or "?" should be used (in case both RFCs pass). Rushing things through right now might just us ending up with semantics the vast majority dislikes.
I didn't exactly get, what do you propose. One RFC with voting for 
"Nullable" or "Union"?

Thanks. Dmitry.

>
> Thanks,
> Bob